FirePro M6000 vs Tesla M2090

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro 7000 Quadro Plex 7000 C2075 C2090 M2075 M2090 X2070 X2090
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
M2000 M3100 M3900 M4000 M4100 M4150 M4170 M5100 M5950 M6000 M6100 M8900

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla M2090 with FirePro M6000, including specs and performance data.

Tesla M2090
2011
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
8.78
+102%

M2090 outperforms M6000 by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
FirePro M6000 FirePro M6000

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking530709
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.707.77
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameGF110Heathrow
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date25 July 2011 (14 years ago)1 July 2012 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores512640
Core clock speed651 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt43 Watt
Texture fill rate41.6632.00
Floating-point processing power1.332 TFLOPS1.024 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs6440
L1 Cache1 MB160 KB
L2 Cache768 KB256 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno datan/a
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorno dataMXM-B
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed924 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth177.4 GB/s72 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
StereoOutput3D-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.0-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p110−120
+89.7%
58
−89.7%
Full HD80−85
+90.5%
42
−90.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how Tesla M2090 and FirePro M6000 compete in popular games:

  • Tesla M2090 is 90% faster in 900p
  • Tesla M2090 is 90% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.78 4.35
Recency 25 July 2011 1 July 2012
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 43 Watt

Tesla M2090 has a 101.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

FirePro M6000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 481.4% lower power consumption.

The Tesla M2090 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla M2090 is a workstation graphics card while FirePro M6000 is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA Tesla M2090
Tesla M2090
AMD FirePro M6000
FirePro M6000
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
P104-100 P104 100
FirePro M6000 FirePro M6000
vs
FirePro M5100 FirePro M5100
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
Pro WX 4100 Radeon Pro WX 4100
Tesla M2075 Tesla M2075
vs
FirePro M3100 FirePro M3100
Tesla M2075 Tesla M2075
vs
Xbox XGPU-B Xbox XGPU B
Tesla M2075 Tesla M2075
vs
GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M6100 FirePro M6100
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M8900 FirePro M8900
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M5100 FirePro M5100
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M4000 FirePro M4000
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M4100 FirePro M4100
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M5950 FirePro M5950
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
vs
FirePro M2000 FirePro M2000

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.8 30 votes

Rate Tesla M2090 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 15 votes

Rate FirePro M6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla M2090 or FirePro M6000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.